環境犯罪之利得沒收──行政與刑事之交錯

Proceeds Confiscation of Environmental Crime: The Interconnection Between Administrative and Criminal Laws

環境法規中常見一行為可能同時觸犯刑事法律及違反行政規定，倘若因該行為而獲的不法利得究竟該如何沒收，是該依照刑法中利得沒收規定予以沒收？抑或是依據行政罰法中之利得追繳規定予以追繳？本文從現行行政罰法與刑法相關利得沒收規定切入，瞭解到就目前規定來看，刑法利得沒收規定相較於行政罰法完整。接著觀察作為我國利得沒收規定參考的德國相關法規，其運作是否面臨與我國相同的課題，從中可知必須要將德國刑法與違反秩序罰法中的相關利得沒收規定視作整體，通盤觀察，換言之，並無區分刑事沒收與行政沒收，進而無庸考量孰者優先沒收之問題。最後，以德國利得沒收規範體系作借鑑，思考一行為同時觸犯刑事法律及行政規定時，基於刑事沒收規定相對明確，且刑事訴訟法亦有相應的程序規定，考量到對行為人之程序保障，仍應以刑事優先為佳，並建議行政罰法中利得沒收規定應該與刑法規定一併作整體性的檢討，以求達到徹底剝奪不法利得之目的。

Under environmental laws, it is common for an act to possibly violate both criminal and administrative regulations. However, it is unclear whether the illegal proceeds shall be confiscated pursuant to the Criminal Code or the Administrative Penalty Act. This article, based on the confiscation provisions under the current Criminal Code or the Administrative Penalty Act, concludes that the Criminal Code has a more comprehensive system relating to the confiscation of illegal proceeds. Additionally, judging from whether similar issues have arisen from the relevant German regulations, which are referred by our confiscation system, we can concludethat it is crucial to view German confiscation provisions the under criminal and administrative regulations as a whole. In other words, there exists no issue of differentiating or prioritizing between criminal and administrative confiscations. Finally, to draw on the experience of German confiscation regulatory system, it is preferable to apply criminal regulations first when an act violates both criminal and administrative laws because the former are clearer and the actor’s procedural rights can be considered under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This article also suggests a comprehensive review of the confiscation provisions under the Criminal Code or the Administrative Penalty Act for thedeprivation of all illegal proceeds.